LATVIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Edward Kuznetsov, Marine Legal Bureau
claim (or lien) and the statutory connecting factors required by the Maritime Code. Where the claim constitutes a maritime lien, it attach - es to the vessel as a right in rem and may support arrest even if ownership has changed, subject to the Maritime Code rules on lien validity and expiry. For non-lien maritime claims, the claimant typically must demonstrate that the relevant liable party (often the owner or demise charterer at the time the claim arose) has the requisite connection to the vessel under Lat - vian law. 5.4 Unpaid Bunkers Unpaid bunkers are treated as an arrestable maritime claim under Latvian law, provided the supply was for the benefit of the vessel and the claim fits within the Maritime Code’s arrestable categories. Latvian courts will look closely at who contracted for the bunkers and the evidence of supply and invoicing. In practice: • a contractual supplier generally has the clearest standing; and • an actual/physical supplier may also pursue arrest if it can demonstrate a legally enforceable claim (eg, assignment, direct contractual chain or other recognised basis under the governing law of the supply contract). Where bunkers were supplied to a chartered vessel and ordered by the charterer, the key issues are (i) whether the charterer had authority (actual or appar - ent) and (ii) how Latvian law treats the “necessaries” claim in the arrest context. “No lien” clauses may be relevant to the merits/relationship allocation, but they do not automatically prevent an arrest application; Latvian courts tend to decide arrestability by refer - ence to the Maritime Code criteria and prima facie evidence. 5.5 Arresting a Vessel Arrest is obtained by an urgent court application sup - ported by documentary evidence establishing a prima facie maritime claim and urgency/risk of dissipation (departure of the vessel).
In practice, Latvian courts typically require: • evidence of authority to act (often a power of attor - ney notarised and covered by apostille); • a structured written application supported by documents (contracts, invoices, bills of lading, cor - respondence and surveys where relevant); and • translations into Latvian for key documents (courts are generally strict on language); Originals are not always required at the filing stage; certified/notarised copies are commonly accepted, and apostille may be requested depending on the document origin and the procedural posture. Courts have discretion to require the arresting party to provide counter-security (a deposit or other security) to cover potential losses from wrongful arrest. Wheth - er it is ordered, and in what amount, depends on the As a matter of interim relief under Latvian proce - dural law, it is possible to seek attachment meas - ures against assets located within Latvia, including bunkers (where ownership can be identified) and, in appropriate cases, freight or receivables. These meas - ures are typically pursued under the Civil Procedure Law framework, rather than as “ship arrest” under the Maritime Code. 5.7 Sister-Ship Arrest Sister-ship arrest is available where the statutory con - ditions are met. The claimant must show that the ves - sel arrested is owned by the same person who was the owner (and, where relevant, the demise charterer/ operator as recognised by Latvian law) of the vessel in respect of which the claim arose, consistent with the Maritime Code approach (aligned with the 1999 Arrest Convention). 5.8 Other Ways of Obtaining Attachment Orders Latvian law provides a broad toolkit of interim meas - ures under the Civil Procedure Law, including: • the freezing of bank accounts; • attachment of receivables and contractual rights; claim, the evidence and proportionality. 5.6 Arresting Bunkers and Freight
334 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook